• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Florida’s state attorney and the prosecutor against Zimmerman, has been indicted

ptrdsmn

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
18
Location
Concord, NH
The George Zimmerman defense has recently gotten a lucky break. Angela Corey, Florida’s state attorney and the prosecutor against Zimmerman, has been indicted by a citizens’ grand jury for allegedly falsifying an arrest warrant and the complaint that led to Zimmerman being charged with the second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin.

The indictment accuses Corey of allegedly withholding photographs of Zimmerman’s head after the incident. Also, Corey allegedly falsely signed an arrest warrant under oath without including the pictures as evidence. Critics claim that Corey rushed the arrest warrant through because activists were rallying around the Trayvon Martin shooting, demanding that Zimmerman be charged with murder. Critics argue that Corey was attempting to secure a reelection with the support of the activists.

Excerpt ... Read more at


http://www.opposingviews.com/i/soci...-indicted-allegedly-falsifying-arrest-warrant
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
1) has no legal weight - this was a group of citizens making up something that sounded official

2) trim your fair use quote so you're not infringing on copyright (rule 11)

3) this has what to do with open carry?
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
A citizen's grand jury, OK :uhoh:

I read somewhere that this grand jury was composed of bunnies and dolls. :D
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Larry Klayman, a former U.S. Justice Department prosecutor, a Florida lawyer since 1977, and now the "citizens' prosecutor" who presided over the Ocala grand jury said this: "The Supreme Court has confirmed that the grand jury belongs to the American people, not the three branches of government. (504 U.S. 36, 48 (1992) (quoting United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991)).

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130702-905033.html
It seems that this particular citizen's grand jury may not have made something up. We shall see if this particular indictment goes farther than the Obama birth certificate "indictment" by a different citizen's grand jury.

It also seems that the cited case above validates the concept of a citizen's grand jury in certain instances.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Did the SC say that the grand jury belonged to the People and not to the three branches of government meaning that folks could convene a grand jury independent of any government official? Or did they mean something else?

Until someone demonstrates that they meant that folks could just up and form a grand jury (I strongly doubt that), this story is just another laugher.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Then convene your silly grand jury and do it.

Good luck with that.

*shakes head*


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Did the SC say that the grand jury belonged to the People and not to the three branches of government meaning that folks could convene a grand jury independent of any government official? Or did they mean something else?

Until someone demonstrates that they meant that folks could just up and form a grand jury (I strongly doubt that), this story is just another laugher.

Why would you wait around for the government to approve something the citizens can use to restrain government? Something the government co-opted years ago?

A person can plausibly argue that a self-created grand-jury is more legitimate today than the grand-jury co-opted by government.

Look, Eye. I been trying to get you to read Dr. Roger Roots' white paper, Are Cops Constitutional. Just read the damn thing. Even if you don't agree with all his conclusions, at least you'll learn a few useful historical points, for example, a few hints about how grand juries used to operate and their original place in the constitutional scheme envisioned by the Framers.

http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

And, please stop looking to government for validity or legitimacy. Or, at the very least, please stop the invalidation based on that assumption ("this story is just a laugher") Government always finds a way to legitimize what its doing or what its done. Using your approach, the Federal Reserve and its destruction of the economy is constitutional. Using your approach, a national debt stacked to Jupiter is constitutional. Using your approach, drone strikes that kill over 4K innocents while getting a handful of terrorists are constitutional.
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I am asking for a specific cite for a specific contention in this thread, not someone else's opinion in treatise form.

He is not making the contention here that these juries mean something. Folks here are. They need to support the contention with specific citations. Otherwise they are full of it.

So, someone here is claiming that the SC would recognize the power of this "jury." What ruling? Put up or shut up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
United States v. Williams - 504

Paragraph breaks inserted by me to ease reading.
A

“[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,”
Hannah v. Larche, 363 U. S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J.,
concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill
of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has
not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches
described in the first three Articles. It “ ‘is a constitutional
fixture in its own right.’ ” United States v. Chanen, 549
F. 2d 1306, 1312 (CA9) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U. S.
App. D. C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F. 2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert.
denied, 434 U. S. 825 (1977).

In fact the whole theory of its
function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional
Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between
the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United
States, 361 U. S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43,
61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28–32 (1906).

Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the
courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship
with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so
to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the
functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to
the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and
administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra,
414 U. S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(a).

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/36/case.html
It seems to me, a layperson, that a grand jury is indeed not a function of government and can be called together without government (a judge). We will have to wait and see how this plays out.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
And, please stop looking to government for validity or legitimacy. Or, at the very least, please stop the invalidation based on that assumption ("this story is just a laugher") Government always finds a way to legitimize what its doing or what its done. Using your approach, the Federal Reserve and its destruction of the economy is constitutional. Using your approach, a national debt stacked to Jupiter is constitutional. Using your approach, drone strikes that kill over 4K innocents while getting a handful of terrorists are constitutional.

Nonsense, the government is the sole source of legal truth, with the SCOTUS being the Grand Arbiters of Fact and Truth. eye95 has made this clear enough that even a -------- like you ought to be able to grasp it.











:p
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Nonsense, the government is the sole source of legal truth, with the SCOTUS being the Grand Arbiters of Fact and Truth. eye95 has made this clear enough that even a -------- like you ought to be able to grasp it.











:p
I stand properly chastised.....appropriately that is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I am not going to get into the legitimacy of a citizens grand jury. But will point out the power of the people to petition a illegal bureaucrat can be exhilarating.

Mike Nifong! GZ persecution is very similar to the Duke Lacrosse case.

Nifong Angela Corey!
 
Last edited:

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
...Until someone demonstrates that they meant that folks could just up and form a grand jury ...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

What, exactly does "up and form" mean? I am not trying to be pejorative, but it goes to the heart of the discussion, which is: Can people form a grand jury, or can only a judge form a grand jury?
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
And nothing quoted from the ruling supports a group of citizens up and creating a grand jury whose proceedings mean a damned thing.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
What, exactly does "up and form" mean? I am not trying to be pejorative, but it goes to the heart of the discussion, which is: Can people form a grand jury, or can only a judge form a grand jury?

Without delving into citations -

Historically the courts have "played host" to grand juries, by such means as setting terms for them to meet, and providing places for them to meet. Prosecutors have convened "special grand juries" when a) the "regular" grand jury was not in term, or b) when they wanted to showcase an investigation. However, in both cases the prosecutor can only select grand jurors from the same pool of candidates as for the petit jury (the "12 good men and true" who decide guily/not guilt in criminal cases). The courts also supply support services by serving subpeonas, siezing folks who ignore a supeona, and otherwise making sure thast the folks can accomplish their job.

My edjumicated guess is that any citizen's grand jury would have to be composed of members of the jury pool (no felons, traitors, or (in some jurisdictions only) non-citizens).

While a "citizen's grand jury" may or may not be different from a "grand jury" grand jury, without the cooperation and collusiuon of the jusicial and executive branches they seem destined to have a hard time functioning. And since it appears this citizen's grand jury indicted without giving the acccused an opportunity to defend themselves they come off as more of a Star Chamber than a grand jury. (The existence and operation of Star Chambers PO'd the English enough to use the Magna Carta to do away with them, and the colonists also complained about their use to the point of specifically mentioning them as one of the several abuses the crown inflicted on them.)

stay safe.
 

notalawyer

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2012
Messages
1,061
Location
Florida
Without delving into citations -

Historically the courts have "played host" to grand juries, by such means as setting terms for them to meet, and providing places for them to meet. Prosecutors have convened "special grand juries" when a) the "regular" grand jury was not in term, or b) when they wanted to showcase an investigation. However, in both cases the prosecutor can only select grand jurors from the same pool of candidates as for the petit jury (the "12 good men and true" who decide guily/not guilt in criminal cases). The courts also supply support services by serving subpeonas, siezing folks who ignore a supeona, and otherwise making sure thast the folks can accomplish their job.

My edjumicated guess is that any citizen's grand jury would have to be composed of members of the jury pool (no felons, traitors, or (in some jurisdictions only) non-citizens).

While a "citizen's grand jury" may or may not be different from a "grand jury" grand jury, without the cooperation and collusiuon of the jusicial and executive branches they seem destined to have a hard time functioning. And since it appears this citizen's grand jury indicted without giving the acccused an opportunity to defend themselves they come off as more of a Star Chamber than a grand jury. (The existence and operation of Star Chambers PO'd the English enough to use the Magna Carta to do away with them, and the colonists also complained about their use to the point of specifically mentioning them as one of the several abuses the crown inflicted on them.)

stay safe.

The 'accused' are never allowed to 'defend' themselves to a real Grand Jury.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Something to think about

In United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:
“’[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,… the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “‘is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’”

[FONT=Arial, Lucida Grande, Helvetica, sans-serif]Seems like under common law founding, we don't government permission to form a grand jury. The better question is if the government refuses to recognize this right too.[/FONT]
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Read the whole ruling, folks. The part cited begins at "A," but continues for great length thereafter, not saying a thing like what the posters here would have you think. Basically, the ruling is saying that the courts do not control grand juries. But they do call them, swear them in, set them in motion, use the court's subpoena power that the jury does not have, and generally lets them be to do what they will for however long they will.

Once started, the grand jury is an entity in its own and is only under the prosecutor's control to the extent that the jury allows it--usually ceding complete control to the prosecutor (probably because they don't know any better).

Nowhere in the ruling is even the implication that folks can just up an call a grand jury and it have any more significance than those of us here getting together and stating that the prosecutor ought to be indicted.
 
Top